Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't gloss over anything. The post was a retort to someone who said "Most Americans own little or nothing in the stock market" which was a blatant lie.
Are there some people who don't have a ton? Absolutely.
The obsession with the top 10% or 1% or whatever is so annoying at this point, there are a TON of Americans who this impacts in a good way. And those aren't exactly the "elite" that everyone is ready to go after with their pitchforks and torches, so get over it. There will always be people who aren't doing well financially.
again. granny's 3 shares of ATT isn't moving the needle for her net worth. when the other 90% own 16% maybe its not terribly accretive as a metric. and you're writing off the other 90% as "not doing financially well" by your definition. Perhaps writing them off is in fact not the wisest policy, no?
again. granny's 3 shares of ATT isn't moving the needle for her net worth. when the other 90% own 16% maybe its not terribly accretive as a metric. and you're writing off the other 90% as "not doing financially well" by your definition. Perhaps writing them off is in fact not the wisest policy, no?
OK, lets cut to the chase, you obviously have disdain for people who are even moderately successful. So take the person in the top 10% making $130K a year, tell me exactly why there shouldn't be attempts made to let them earn more through investments or pay less in taxes...or whatever silly thing the government does to pretend they make the market better? Also, tell me how much money you want to take from that person and give to Granny? This being granny who had several decades to do something with her life, save, and be ready for retirement, who might also have pension checks, SS coming in, and a fully paid off mortgage?
Also, nobody is being "written off" in my scenario. Like I said, there will always be poor people. If you could snap your fingers and multiply the net worth of every American by 100x, guess what, the bottom would still be the bottom, and they wouldn't be able to live the same lifestyle of many other people. Thats how the world works, its simple math that most grownups can come to terms with.
OK, lets cut to the chase, you obviously have disdain for people who are even moderately successful. So take the person in the top 10% making $130K a year, tell me exactly why there shouldn't be attempts made to let them earn more through investments or pay less in taxes...or whatever silly thing the government does to pretend they make the market better? Also, tell me how much money you want to take from that person and give to Granny? This being granny who had several decades to do something with her life, save, and be ready for retirement, who might also have pension checks, SS coming in, and a fully paid off mortgage?
Also, nobody is being "written off" in my scenario. Like I said, there will always be poor people. If you could snap your fingers and multiply the net worth of every American by 100x, guess what, the bottom would still be the bottom, and they wouldn't be able to live the same lifestyle of many other people. Thats how the world works, its simple math that most grownups can come to terms with.
nice straw man argument. Never claimed any disdain for 10%; I'm part of it, but [ls go ahead and make your own assumptions. Nobody is asking to take $$ to give to granny, just showing that claiming a metric shows economy is booming when it only really benefits 10% of the population is silly but you def threw in a bunch of variables to try to obfuscate the point..I mean maybe granny won the lotto or her son is an nab star, just as relevant.... by your logic should we only use metrics that affect NY, NJ, and,TX, CA since that would have same effect on population? your own words claimed that this "impacts a ton of people" and implied that those excluded were one "not doing well financially" aka the 90% you are in essence writing off....perhaps next time we borrow 2T we think about them instead and let the 10% already doing well alone....
nice straw man argument. Never claimed any disdain for 10%; I'm part of it, but [ls go ahead and make your own assumptions. Nobody is asking to take $$ to give to granny, just showing that claiming a metric shows economy is booming when it only really benefits 10% of the population is silly but you def threw in a bunch of variables to try to obfuscate the point..I mean maybe granny won the lotto or her son is an nab star, just as relevant.... by your logic should we only use metrics that affect NY, NJ, and,TX, CA since that would have same effect on population? your own words claimed that this "impacts a ton of people" and implied that those excluded were one "not doing well financially" aka the 90% you are in essence writing off....perhaps next time we borrow 2T we think about them instead and let the 10% already doing well alone....
The economy booming and the DOW are such vastly different things, so um, no.
Also, ridiculous to try and say that the number of lottery winners and NBA stars somehow even comes close to being a fraction of a percent of the people who actually have the scenarios I mention such as collecting a pension, ss, or having their home paid off.
Im not at all supporting the Fed going into more debt, I hate that, but I am saying that people need to give up this nonsense that just because the market is doing really well, we should somehow be mourning the fact that its not helping granny or some people who are poor.
Also, nobody is being "written off" in my scenario. Like I said, there will always be poor people. If you could snap your fingers and multiply the net worth of every American by 100x, guess what, the bottom would still be the bottom, and they wouldn't be able to live the same lifestyle of many other people. Thats how the world works, its simple math that most grownups can come to terms with.
If you are truly cutting to the chase, then you look at overall statistics that show rising inequality means bad things. Never in history has it meant good things.....
No one is claiming that there will not be poor...or rich. The claim being made is that the extremes of inequality which are now being experienced have divorced the middle class from society and caused stress and anxiety (shorter life spans, more opiate addiction, etc.) and the resulting Chaos. Trump is the result of rising inequality - and everyone knows he's not going to fix it. But when people feel it is hopeless they just lash out.
And it IS hopeless. Anecdote or your experience means little. I've very well off...but I don't fool myself that this means that 320 million Americans are doing as well as they should (given our resources)....
Another high economic official said it in another way "I don't mind people getting very wealthy - as long as they pay their taxes". Well, who can doubt that our wealthy don't pay theirs. Look at Manafort, Trump and Romney and all the rest.....they use their power to lower the taxes on themselves, thereby throwing the country further and further into debt.
No one of sound mind can advance the idea that we should not pay for our government and society. Yet, that is what is happening. Many of those very wealthy people are worth 10 or 20 or 30% more than they should be due to both cheating and the passing of recent laws allowing them to pay less.
A society makes decisions on what it approves of. When the government gives you a break on stuff, you do it more.
Right now the tax laws have reduced that is collected and we had to vastly increase the debt and deficit to make up the difference. So that money "you planned for" is borrowed from our kids....since we are not paying our way.
Isn't the conservative thing to do....to pay for our society...even as it stands? Bankrupting it for the pleasure of someone being worth 5 billion instead of 7 billion or even 6 million as opposed to 5 million is not good policy.
Oh, and as a town, county, state and country - we ARE responsible for a certain degree for each other and for common expenses. You seem to think the country was started the day you were born and ends the day you pass away and it's every man for himself. Societies haven't worked that way for thousands of years.....that's a fairy tale.
top 10% own 84%..so Theo there 90 holds 16%- kinda skewed, no?
I think it we took another 10% (the top 20%), we'd see an even more detailed look. The summary is easy - the VAST majority of Americans are not invested in any real manner in the stock market.
Here it is:
"Eighty percent of Americans together owned just 8 percent of all stocks."
So, taking 100 people - if 20 of them own 92% - each worth of equities, the other 80 own 8% together.
Out of each one million dollars, that means each of the 80 own $1K each, while each of the 20 own $46,000 each.
Putting a 10X multiple on this to reflect real world, someone in the 85% range might own 460,000 in stock - so they would have a little concern about whether the market went up 7% or 10% in a year (14K difference). But the bottom 80, owning 10K worth of equities would be only making 300 dollars more.....which could be erased by two mid-level traffic tickets or a low-level car repair.
Those people are not watching the market and wondering about whether they will make a couple hundred more of less.
Of course, all the distributions are more skewed than this. Chances are most of the bottom 50% have little or nothing....
Good Wages and Benefits are far superior to "the markets' in terms of a sane and functioning society. This would allow people to actually get ahead instead of being on a treadmill.
If you are truly cutting to the chase, then you look at overall statistics that show rising inequality means bad things. Never in history has it meant good things.....
No one is claiming that there will not be poor...or rich. The claim being made is that the extremes of inequality which are now being experienced have divorced the middle class from society and caused stress and anxiety (shorter life spans, more opiate addiction, etc.) and the resulting Chaos. Trump is the result of rising inequality - and everyone knows he's not going to fix it. But when people feel it is hopeless they just lash out.
And it IS hopeless. Anecdote or your experience means little. I've very well off...but I don't fool myself that this means that 320 million Americans are doing as well as they should (given our resources)....
Another high economic official said it in another way "I don't mind people getting very wealthy - as long as they pay their taxes". Well, who can doubt that our wealthy don't pay theirs. Look at Manafort, Trump and Romney and all the rest.....they use their power to lower the taxes on themselves, thereby throwing the country further and further into debt.
No one of sound mind can advance the idea that we should not pay for our government and society. Yet, that is what is happening. Many of those very wealthy people are worth 10 or 20 or 30% more than they should be due to both cheating and the passing of recent laws allowing them to pay less.
A society makes decisions on what it approves of. When the government gives you a break on stuff, you do it more.
Right now the tax laws have reduced that is collected and we had to vastly increase the debt and deficit to make up the difference. So that money "you planned for" is borrowed from our kids....since we are not paying our way.
Isn't the conservative thing to do....to pay for our society...even as it stands? Bankrupting it for the pleasure of someone being worth 5 billion instead of 7 billion or even 6 million as opposed to 5 million is not good policy.
Oh, and as a town, county, state and country - we ARE responsible for a certain degree for each other and for common expenses. You seem to think the country was started the day you were born and ends the day you pass away and it's every man for himself. Societies haven't worked that way for thousands of years.....that's a fairy tale.
Go start an income inequality thread.
But back to reality, lets level set. The DOW is one small and mostly insignificant measure of the market, its complete junk science to use it as the basis for anything other than a benchmark against itself, and even that is questionable due to the high turnover. All of the other indexes combined are a much better measure than those 30 random stocks. I'm thrilled for anyone and everyone making money from the market regardless of which index it is and regardless of their net worth. Over 50% of the US owns stock and are benefiting from the current run (extending over both Trump and Obama, neither of whom get "credit" for it. Those same 50% will also go through a period where their net worth or investment income goes down, and this will also not be largely because of the actions of some fool in an oval office in DC. Those who make the effort to save and invest long term will always win, they will win on different scales, but the goal is to improve your OWN situation, not begrudge others for what they have been able to do.
And lastly, you don't get to pick what I "seem to think" especially when you are that far off base.
again. granny's 3 shares of ATT isn't moving the needle for her net worth. when the other 90% own 16% maybe its not terribly accretive as a metric. and you're writing off the other 90% as "not doing financially well" by your definition. Perhaps writing them off is in fact not the wisest policy, no?
Yup. So its what? 27 trillion right? Well the top 10% 32.57 million of us own 84% of it (skewed massively towards the 1% still)...but within that each person ON AVERAGE owns 696K in stock.
The other 90% of us? 325 million of us? On average? 13K. And thats mostly also skewed towards the top end....but 13K isnt enough to retire on-which is what most of us own stock for.
The economy booming and the DOW are such vastly different things, so um, no.
Also, ridiculous to try and say that the number of lottery winners and NBA stars somehow even comes close to being a fraction of a percent of the people who actually have the scenarios I mention such as collecting a pension, ss, or having their home paid off.
Im not at all supporting the Fed going into more debt, I hate that, but I am saying that people need to give up this nonsense that just because the market is doing really well, we should somehow be mourning the fact that its not helping granny or some people who are poor.
for first point in bold I don't disagree - but its comical considering the thread you are in, that I am refuting literally starts with "president Trump is the greatest on the economy. Dow hits 25,000" Perhaps let phma who started this 170+ page topic with those words know the good news that you've made my point for me.
The second points seems to be lost on you as well, considering you agree the dow isn't a great representation of the economy- your bringing in outside factors to determine why it's ok granny misses out on a 2T debt fueled rally in the markets seems invalid, however my examples are just as germane as yours since none of it is actually relevant.
For the third point guess what- you miss the point yet again- I've literally spelled it out already but you continue on with your straw man arguments. The top 1 or 10% have done historically well over the last decade. The last thing we needed is another 2T of borrowed cash to give them even more money by juicing the stock market, instead we could have used a bit of that cash to help out the middle or working class of people more by crafting policies aimed that them, not one that gave us share repurchase-palooza......you know if things like "Infrastructure Week" or "lower cost prescription drugs for everyone" or "cheaper, better healthcare that covers everyone" were more than just a poster on a wall to change the topic from "fine people on both sides" type self inflicted gutshots perhaps the bottom 90% would be grabbing some of that rising tide too....
The economy booming and the DOW are such vastly different things, so um, no.
Also, ridiculous to try and say that the number of lottery winners and NBA stars somehow even comes close to being a fraction of a percent of the people who actually have the scenarios I mention such as collecting a pension, ss, or having their home paid off.
Im not at all supporting the Fed going into more debt, I hate that, but I am saying that people need to give up this nonsense that just because the market is doing really well, we should somehow be mourning the fact that its not helping granny or some people who are poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metsfan53
for first point in bold I don't disagree - but its comical considering the thread you are in, that I am refuting literally starts with "president Trump is the greatest on the economy. Dow hits 25,000" Perhaps let phma who started this 170+ page topic with those words know the good news that you've made my point for me.
The second points seems to be lost on you as well, considering you agree the dow isn't a great representation of the economy- your bringing in outside factors to determine why it's ok granny misses out on a 2T debt fueled rally in the markets seems invalid, however my examples are just as germane as yours since none of it is actually relevant.
For the third point guess what- you miss the point yet again- I've literally spelled it out already but you continue on with your straw man arguments. The top 1 or 10% have done historically well over the last decade. The last thing we needed is another 2T of borrowed cash to give them even more money by juicing the stock market, instead we could have used a bit of that cash to help out the middle or working class of people more by crafting policies aimed that them, not one that gave us share repurchase-palooza......you know if things like "Infrastructure Week" or "lower cost prescription drugs for everyone" or "cheaper, better healthcare that covers everyone" were more than just a poster on a wall to change the topic from "fine people on both sides" type self inflicted gutshots perhaps the bottom 90% would be grabbing some of that rising tide too....
Talk about missing points, you write a one paragraph tirade about a point that I completely agreed with you on?
Here are my points in this thread:
1. No POTUS controls the market
2. More than half of the US population owns stocks and I want to see the markets do well for all of those people
3. Those not in the market like granny have other things that other folks dont have, not everyone belongs in the market anyway. There are other ways the government can help them
4. The government needs to do as little meddling in the markets as possible
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
